It would be weird that in an actual monarchy Beatrice and Eugenie 'should' refrain from being a Princess with the prefix HRH. There are still ladies and gentlemen in republican Germany, France, Portugal, Italy, etc. whom are known with their princely title.

At a big party on the Continent you can see a Princess Diane d'Orléans, Duchess of Cadaval (Portugal), you can see a Princess Caroline Murat (France), you can see a Prince Scipione Borghese (Italy), you can see a Princess Anastasia zu Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenborg née Princess of Prussia (Germany) but wait.... the two daughters of a royal Duke, granddaughters of a Queen, nieces to a future King, cousins to another future King should not use their titles????

Beatrice and Eugenie should simply make superb oldfashioned marriages with gentlemen like George Percy (the future Duke of Northumberland and heir to Alnwick Castle), George Spencer-Churchill (the future Duke of Marlborough and heir to Blenheim Palace), Henry Beaufort (the future Duke of Somerset and heir to Badminton House), Charles Innes-Kerr (the future Duke of Roxburghe and heir to Floors Castle), etc...

And their cousins Louise and James, who are apparently HRHs and Princess and Prince and also grandchildren of The Queen, but just aren't "known" as such, also because of choices made for them by others when they were babies.

They are all the individual people they are, with their own personalities and identities and rights as individuals, which includes the right to choose the identity by which they will be known so long as it is an identity which is available to them by right or law.

Parents make decisions for their minor children all the time, many times about things far more important than whether they're HRH or just Lord/Lady. Since no Letters Patent were issued by the Queen denying James and Louise the princely style they already possess by virtue of being grandchildren of the monarch in the male line, when they're 18 years old and grown adults, they could go by HRH Prince James of Wessex and HRH Princess Louise of Wessex if they want, or they could remain as they are now. That would be their choice. As minors however, their parents rule the roost, and if they wanted their children styled as the children of an earl in the hope that not burdening them with a more elevated style would help them as they grew into adulthood, who are any of us to criticize that?

__________________"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "

If we're looking ahead in time to when both James and Louise reach adulthood and can make their own decisions, if things go according to plan, they would opt to be known as HRH Prince James of Edinburgh and HRH Princess Louise of Edinburgh with eventually James becoming HRH The Duke of Edinburgh upon Edward's death.

__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon

There is an argument about whether or not they are actually HRHs. Is the Queen's will enough to overrule the LPs? One argument, from BP itself, that I have seen is 'yes' - the Queen's will has been made known and that is all that was needed to remove that right from them.

Having grown up without the HRHs and seeing how Beatrice and Eugenie are treated in the press etc there is no way I see them taking on that burden when they turn 18 and knowing that they will become further and further from the throne. They have both dropped two places since their births and only further drops to come as Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie marry and have children. By the time Louise is 18 she could be another 4 or so places lower in the line of succession than she is now and she is already down to 11th.

How much of the coverage of Zara depends on her being the daughter of the Princess Royal and how much on her being a skilled equestrian? I doubt media would have been as interested in Zara if she had only been known as the daughter of the Princess Royal. Isn't it better to compare the coverage of the Wessex with that of Peter Phillips.

How much of the coverage of Zara depends on her being the daughter of the Princess Royal and how much on her being a skilled equestrian? I doubt media would have been as interested in Zara if she had only been known as the daughter of the Princess Royal. Isn't it better to compare the coverage of the Wessex with that of Peter Phillips.

That is true to a certain extent, but Zara has always received more press - even when she was a teenager. As a female, she received coverage of her clothing etc. She is also a more colourful character - starting back when she pierced her tongue.

That is true to a certain extent, but Zara has always received more press - even when she was a teenager. As a female, she received coverage of her clothing etc. She is also a more colourful character - starting back when she pierced her tongue.

I also think it will be the same for Louise and James. Louise will naturally receive more press than her brother simply because they can discuss her clothing. It may be slightly more as well if she even remotely resembles her granny Lilibet.

__________________

"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."

Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.

There is an argument about whether or not they are actually HRHs. Is the Queen's will enough to overrule the LPs? One argument, from BP itself, that I have seen is 'yes' - the Queen's will has been made known and that is all that was needed to remove that right from them.

Having grown up without the HRHs and seeing how Beatrice and Eugenie are treated in the press etc there is no way I see them taking on that burden when they turn 18 and knowing that they will become further and further from the throne. They have both dropped two places since their births and only further drops to come as Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie marry and have children. By the time Louise is 18 she could be another 4 or so places lower in the line of succession than she is now and she is already down to 11th.

The Queen can not "simply overrule", there needs to be a formal Letters Patent, which needs the consideration and political backing of the Government. Imagine that Beatrice and Eugenie disagree with their grandmother and fight a family feud (plenty of examples on many royal families). The ladies would be in very strong shoes as they simply can wave with the very formal Letters Patent of 1917, attrubuted with the King's Grand Seal et al... So there is more needed than a simple overrule by the Queen.

The proof for that is that King George VI felt the need to make sure -in a specific Letters Patent- that eventual descendants of his brother Edward, after all sons or daughters of a HRH, a Prince of the United Kingdom and a royal Duke, would never have their father's title, style or attribute of a Royal Highness.

The place in line of succession is not so important for being a HRH. Look at nr 24 (HRH Prince Richard, The Duke of Gloucester), look at nr 34 (HRH Prince Edward, The Duke of Kent), look at nr 42 (HRH Prince Michael of Kent), look at 46 (HRH Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy)...

There is an argument about whether or not they are actually HRHs. Is the Queen's will enough to overrule the LPs? One argument, from BP itself, that I have seen is 'yes' - the Queen's will has been made known and that is all that was needed to remove that right from them.

The Queen is not a dictator. If she wanted her will to be made known, she should have done in the proper legal way, i.e. by issuing new LPs. I suppose she didn't because it would be hard to justify stripping James and Louise of their titles when Beatrice and Eugenie are keeping theirs. In any case, the Wessex children were treated unfairly by a decision which was not their parents' to make.

Quote:

Having grown up without the HRHs and seeing how Beatrice and Eugenie are treated in the press etc there is no way I see them taking on that burden when they turn 18 and knowing that they will become further and further from the throne. They have both dropped two places since their births and only further drops to come as Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie marry and have children. By the time Louise is 18 she could be another 4 or so places lower in the line of succession than she is now and she is already down to 11th.

Their place in the line of succession is irrelevant. Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra are much further down in the line (below 40 for Prince Michael and around 50 for his sister), but they are still HRHs. What matters is that James and Louise are grandchildren of a monarch in male line and should be accordingly princes of the United Kingdom.

That 96 LP is interesting to read in light of changes to the Succession Laws. It's written about ex wives, not ex husbands and now that a Princess of Wales is possible in the future, it's discriminatory. It was published in August 1996 - if anyone wants to look it up and read it.

Not that I am hoping for any future divorces. I like steady/stable in my royal couples.

I wonder if changes will be made in the future regarding the York title. At some point in the future, Charlotte will be in a position where that title should be hers in her own right. It will not really apply to Harry because once Charles becomes king, Harry will no longer be the spare.

I wonder if changes will be made in the future regarding the York title. At some point in the future, Charlotte will be in a position where that title should be hers in her own right. It will not really apply to Harry because once Charles becomes king, Harry will no longer be the spare.

I believe that the changes to the succession act allowing primogeniture does not apply to the peerage. Unless Andrew marries and has male issue, it looks like the Duke of York title will merge with the crown and it'll be up to Charles to decided what to do with it. Once Charles is king though, Harry will be the same spot as Andrew is now as the second son of the monarch. I do expect though that he'll receive a peerage (Sussex, Clarence?) before Andrew passes on.

__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon

I wonder if changes will be made in the future regarding the York title. At some point in the future, Charlotte will be in a position where that title should be hers in her own right. It will not really apply to Harry because once Charles becomes king, Harry will no longer be the spare.

Theres no law that regulates who can be appointed Duke of York but it's customarily given to the second oldest son of the monarch so it would in fact still apply to Harry when Charles is King.

The advice that all that is needed is that the Queen's will is made known came from BP around the time of the birth of Louise.

Note that William was called Duke of Cambridge and Kate Duchess from their wedding day - even though the LPs weren't signed until May - so the Queen's will was made known and operated on even though the documents were signed.

The Queen does NOT need the approval of parliament to issue LPs at all.

As I said there is a 'debate' and to argue that the Queen 'can't do something' isn't a 'debate' but presented as a 'fact' when the 'debate' on this issue suggests that there is certainly senior people who believe that she can do that.

That 96 LP is interesting to read in light of changes to the Succession Laws. It's written about ex wives, not ex husbands and now that a Princess of Wales is possible in the future, it's discriminatory. It was published in August 1996 - if anyone wants to look it up and read it.

Not that I am hoping for any future divorces. I like steady/stable in my royal couples.

A female heir apparent was always possible, just unlikely - when Mary II died, the future Queen Anne was William III's heir apparent as the rules of succession had dictated that if any children of William's with a wife other than Mary would come in the succession after Anne.

The title of Prince/Princess of Wales is a tricky one in that the rules for the Prince of Wales state that the heir apparent is eligible to be Prince of Wales, regardless of gender, while the Princess of Wales is the wife of the Prince of Wales.

Now, if in the future there was a female heir apparent they might chose to make her Princess of Wales and amend the way the title seems to work now (now it could operate like the Duke of Lancaster or Lord of Man). However, even if they did that the wife of this hypothetical Princess would not be Prince of Wales or automatically an HRH.

Husbands do not take their wives titles. A woman might become Mrs. John Smith, but her husband doesn't become Mr. Jane Doe.

Part of this reasoning within Royal circles is that a Queen may be in her own right, or as Consort, but a King always holds power and in British history, the men who have held titles through their wives have held the power and authority that comes with it.

As such, while Charles' wives have both held his titles, neither of Anne's children have gained titles from her, and the DoE had to have LPs to create him a British Prince.

If there ever is a Princess of Wales in her own right then her husband will likely have LPs issued to make him a Prince of the United Kingdom and possibly a Duke - comparable to the DoE or Daniel of Sweden. But to have him be PoW would be incorrect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by padams2359

I wonder if changes will be made in the future regarding the York title. At some point in the future, Charlotte will be in a position where that title should be hers in her own right. It will not really apply to Harry because once Charles becomes king, Harry will no longer be the spare.

There are no official rules about the Duke of York title, it's just unofficially that it's created for the second son of the monarch. Titles also tend not to be recreated while someone is still able to be "of" that place.

The next second son of the monarch will be Harry, however it's unlikely that he will be created Duke of York as he'll probably receive his Dukedom while Andrew is still alive, and even if he doesn't Beatrice and Eugenie will still likely be alive and be able to be "of York".

Charlotte is not the son of the monarch, second or otherwise, and will likely be created Princess Royal in time, but if they did want to give her a peerage (unlikely - whenever peerages have been created on the marriage of Royal women before, it's been for their husbands, not themselves), she likely still wouldn't get the Duke of York title as Beatrice and Eugenie may still very well be alive then, and still "of York."

The Duke of York title, while often not descending to the next generation, doesn't typically get use every generation. We forget this because it got used more in the last 100 years than previously - but that's because 2 of the last 3 Dukes of York have become King.

How do you know if something will make a difference if you never try? Some people are prepared to accept the status quo without question or challenge, and others aren't. Nothing will ever change if people don't decide to do things differently. I believe that if Beatrice and Eugenie were to stop using their styles and titles, a lot would change for them and they could live more like other rich, privileged, people. I don't believe for one second that they will, though.

those are big assumptions you are making

They are Princesses by birth that is their title that they have been known by all their lives Im sure there have been times when they wished they werent titled but Im sure there have been times they have been proud of it too. Noone can say or take that title away from them.

They are Princesses by birth that is their title that they have been known by all their lives Im sure there have been times when they wished they werent titled but Im sure there have been times they have been proud of it too. Noone can say or take that title away from them.

That said it worked for Patricia of Connaught. Upon marrying a commoner she voluntarily relinquished her title and status of HRH and was known as Lady Patricia Ramsay for the rest of her life. Though it was different times and she kept on being seen as and being treated as a member of the royal family.

The title of Prince/Princess of Wales is a tricky one in that the rules for the Prince of Wales state that the heir apparent is eligible to be Prince of Wales, regardless of gender, while the Princess of Wales is the wife of the Prince of Wales.

Now, if in the future there was a female heir apparent they might chose to make her Princess of Wales and amend the way the title seems to work now (now it could operate like the Duke of Lancaster or Lord of Man). However, even if they did that the wife of this hypothetical Princess would not be Prince of Wales or automatically an HRH.

I am rather taken with the notion that a female heir apparent could become Prince of Wales, so that, with respect to this particular title, Prince can become a gender neutral term. Elizabeth I often referred to herself as a prince.

Quote:

Husbands do not take their wives titles. A woman might become Mrs. John Smith, but her husband doesn't become Mr. Jane Doe.

Not formally yet. Though when conversing with my husband I often refer to the (male) spouse of a woman as "Mr Jane Doe" if I don't know his name.

__________________

__________________"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"